Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

Ottawa, Canada March 20, 2013 www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca

The mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) is to provide independent analysis to Parliament on the state of the nation’s finances, the government’s estimates and trends in the Canadian economy and, upon request from a committee or parliamentarian, to estimate the financial expenditure of any proposal for matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction.

Over the course of the last few years, Parliament has made it clear that criminal justice is one of its major legislative priorities. PBO has responded to this by providing expenditure estimates of various pieces of criminal justice legislation. This report follows from these prior reports, looking at the total expenditures associated with criminal justice over the past 11 years.

This is the first multi-year study to be undertaken of the aggregate expenditures on criminal justice in Canada. While the Department of Justice and Statistics Canada have published estimates of criminal justice expenditures, they provided only point in time estimates (2008 and 2001, respectively).

By contrast, this report estimates criminal justice spending in Canada for the federal, provincial, and territorial governments for the period of 2002 to 2012. Furthermore, this report is comprehensive in that it includes police capital and full youth justice (not just corrections) expenditures.

This analysis serves as a starting point to support an understanding of the expenses of Canada’s criminal justice system and its components over time. It aims to equip parliamentarians with the information needed to better scrutinize planned expenses.

Significant work remains to be done to strengthen understanding of criminal justice spending in Canada. It involves further improving the data available for all levels of government. Public accounts do not fully differentiate expenditures associated with criminal justice. For example, the court costs are not broken down between criminal and civil. Methods to better collect and capture expenditure data relating to criminal justice at the federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal levels ought to be considered. Governments ought to consider presenting their public accounts in a way that allows a clear understanding of whether figures are attributable to criminal justice.

Prepared by: Rod Story and Tolga R. Yalkin*

* The authors thank Michael Kirk for initial work on this project; Mostafa Askari, Randall Bartlett, Sahir Khan, Chris Matier and Peter Weltman for comments; Pat Brown, Jocelyne Scrim, Trevor Shaw and Adam Pennell for assistance in preparation; Alberta Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General, Ontario Provincial Police, Ottawa Police, and other organizations and their staff for data and expertise. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors. Please contact Rod Story (email: [email protected]) for further information.

i Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

Executive Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Defining the Criminal Justice System 3

3 Methodology 4 3.1 Policing 4 3.2 Courts 8 3.3 Corrections and Parole 13

4 Criminal Justice Expenditure Estimate 2002-2012 14 4.1 Analysis of Security Expenditures 18 4.2 Analysis of Court Expenditures 19 4.3 Analysis of Correction Expenditures 20

5 Conclusions 23

References 25

Appendix A — Other Considered Data Sources 26

Appendix B — Proportion of Police Budgets Devoted to Crime 28

Appendix C — Criminal Proportion of Court Expenditure Calculation 30

Appendix D — Estimation of Youth Justice Expenditures 33

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

Executive Summary

This report contains an estimate of expenditures on In a nutshell, between 2002 and 2012: criminal justice for the federal government, provinces and territories for the last eleven years.1 • Provincial security expenditures in real terms (2002 dollars) increased from $5.6 to It includes policing, courts (judges, prosecutors, legal $7.9 billion (an increase of $2.3 billion), aid, and youth justice) and corrections (including representing a 41% increase (3.5% average parole) expenditures. annual growth).

PBO developed a new methodology for estimating • Provincial court expenditures in real terms expenditures for the criminal justice system drawing (2002 dollars) increased from $1.8 to $2.6 on public accounts, Statistics Canada datasets, and billion (an increase of $0.8 billion), information received through direct request. representing a 45% increase (3.7% average annual growth). In 2011-2012, the federal, provincial and territorial governments spent $20.3 billion (1.1% nominal GDP) • Federal corrections expenditures in real on criminal justice. terms (2002 dollars) increased from $1.5 to $2.2 billion (an increase of $0.7 billion), Total annual expenditures on criminal justice is representing a 45% increase (3.8% average comparable to the budget of National Defence ($20.5 annual growth). billion in 2012), half the size of the budget of Human Resources and Skills Development ($48.1 billion in • Federal security expenditures in real terms 2012), and more than double the budget of (2002 dollars) increased from $1.0 to $1.6 Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada billion (an increase of $0.6 billion), ($7.9 billion in 2012). representing a 53% increase (4.4% average annual growth). While Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to make all criminal laws, it is the provinces that, broadly Provincial corrections expenditures played a smaller speaking, enforce and administer criminal justice. role in increasing criminal justice spending. Between The results reflect this, showing expenditures split 2002 and 2012, expenditures in real terms (2002 27/73 between the federal government and the dollars) increased from $1.4 to $1.6 billion (an provinces ($5.5 billion and $14.8 billion). increase of $0.2 billion), representing a 19% increase (1.8% average annual growth). Over the last 11 years, national criminal justice expenditures have increased in real terms and as a Over the same period, federal court expenditures percentage of GDP. have actually declined in real terms (2002 dollars) from $0.8 to $0.7 billion (a drop of $0.1 billion), The largest contributor to the increase has been representing a 14% drop (-1.5% average annual provincial security, followed by provincial courts and growth). federal corrections and security. Per capita expenditures on criminal justice have also increased steadily. Since 2002, per capita spending,

1 Expenditure information was collected from the public accounts for the in real terms, has increased 23%. During the same federal government and for the four largest provinces (ON, QC, BC, AB) period, Canada’s crime rate has declined 23% representing 86% of the population for fiscal years 2001-2002 through (Figure 1-1). 2011-2012. The expenditures for the four provinces was then proportionally increased (by population) to estimate the total provincial and territorial criminal justice expenditures. Note that from this point onward, “provinces” will refer to “provinces and territories” unless otherwise indicated.

1 Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

Figure 1-1 Real per capita Expenditure for the Figure 1-2 Canadian Crime Rate and Criminal Justice Canadian Criminal Justice System in 2002 dollars Expenditure as a Percentage of GDP

Sources: PBO, Statistics Canada

Sources: PBO, Statistics Canada The crime rate is superimposed on the graphs above A similar trend is seen when spending is expressed as for illustrative purposes only. This paper is not policy a percentage of nominal GDP. While trending advice. downwards from 2002 to 2006, expenditures have steadily increased between 2006 and 2012, representing a 15.2% increase (Figure 1-2).

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

5 1 Introduction one. Expenditures were considered part of the criminal justice system if they were: The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s (PBO’s) legislative mandate includes providing independent analysis on • related to traditional crimes in federal the state of the nation’s finances.2 Consistent with criminal statutes;6 this mandate, the objective of this report is to estimate the financial expenditure for the criminal • paid by some level of government using justice system for the federal government and the taxpayer funds; and, provinces and territories. • aimed at protection, deterrence, For this report, criminal justice delivery encompasses punishment or rehabilitation. three primary components: For an expenditure to be included, it had to meet all 1. policing; three of these criteria. A brief discussion follows on the implications of each. 2. courts (judges, prosecutors, legal aid, and youth justice); and The first criterion limits this report to expenditures associated with what is conventionally understood as 3. corrections (including parole). criminal justice. As such, federal environmental and competition regulation as well as provincial Each of these primary components is made up of regulation of any type were excluded. subcomponents, which, when added together, represent the total expenditure for the delivery of The second criterion limits this report to criminal justice in Canada. expenditures incurred by government using taxpayer funds. Costs of criminal justice to private businesses In undertaking this work, PBO relied on 11 years of and persons are excluded. Examples of these 3 public accounts data from federal and provincial excluded costs include private security, alarm 4 governments. systems, or financial losses caused by crime.

The following sections of this report describe in more The third criterion limits this report to expenditures detail the nature of the data, the methodology used for administrative functions directly related to to estimate expenditures for criminal justice delivery protecting public safety, deterring and punishing the from the data and the fiscal impact of the delivery of commission of crimes, and rehabilitating offenders. criminal justice today and into the future. Other costs, such as compensation to victims of crime, were not included. 2 Defining the Criminal Justice System It is important to note that in Canada, the federal In the absence of an authoritative definition of government has exclusive jurisdiction to make criminal justice system expenditures, PBO developed criminal law, unlike the United Sates where each state has this power. With regards to the enforcement of criminal law, it is the responsibility of the provinces and territories.

2 Parliament of Canada Act (2007). 3 Provincial is used to represent both provincial and territorial. Similarly 5 Other criminal justice expenditure papers did not explicitly state a province represents both provinces and territories. definition. See Zhang (2010) and Taylor-Butts (2002). 4 Due to time considerations, criminal justice expenditures were collected 6 That is, what have traditionally been understood as felonies and for only four (ON, QC, BC, AB) of the 13 provinces and territories misdemeanors and are now termed indictable and summary offences in representing 86% of Canada’s population. The expenditures for these the Criminal Code of Canada, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act four provinces were then proportionally increased (by population) to (formerly the Narcotic Control Act and Parts III and IV of the Food and estimate the total provincial and territorial criminal justice expenditures. Drug Act) and the Youth Criminal Justice Act. 3

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

3 Methodology policing services (i.e. the RCMP or provincial police force). The components of the criminal justice system were categorized as follows: policing, courts, and 3.1.2 Police Funding in Canada corrections. In all provinces and territories subcontracting the Within each of these categories, the report provides RCMP (i.e. except Ontario and Québec), the province details of the structure of each component, its pays 70% of provincial policing expenditures and the funding level, any estimation that was performed, federal government 30%.10 and a description of the data sources. The policing expenditures for municipalities in these There were two sources available for expenditure provinces and territories relying on the RCMP data: public accounts (both federal and provincial) depend on population levels. and Statistics Canada.7 Municipalities with less than 5,000 residents are not For each section, the report details the data source required to have a municipal police service and can that best captures expenditures and avoids double continue to rely on provincial policing. counting.8 Data sources that were not selected and the reasons for not being selected are presented in Municipalities with more than 5,000 residents are Appendix A. required to have a municipal police service.

3.1 Policing If the municipality has more than 5,000 but less than 15,000 residents, it pays 70% of the expenditure for 3.1.1 Police Structure in Canada the police service and the federal government pays 30%. Canada has three levels of policing: national, provincial, and municipal.9 If the municipality has more than 15,000 residents, it pays 90% of the expenditure for the police service Canada’s national police force is the Royal Canadian and the federal government pays the remaining Mounted Police (RCMP). 10%.11

Ontario and Québec have their own provincial police. Municipalities that choose to have their own police Newfoundland and Labrador has its own provincial force pay 100% of the expenditure. police but also contracts with the RCMP for policing services. All other provinces and territories contract Ontario and Québec pay 100% of their provincial with the RCMP for their provincial and territorial policing expenditures. policing services. Ontario municipalities subcontracting the services of Municipalities are responsible for providing policing the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) pay 100% of the 12 services. They either have their own police force or expenditure. subcontract the provider of provincial or territorial

7 See 3.1.4 Policing Expenditure Data Sources. 8 Double counting can occur when the data sources for two different components both contain the same data for the same subcomponent. If 10 See http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/policeservices/police- the expenditures from the two data sources were then added without agreements/index.htm, removing the overlapping data from one of the sources, the expenditure http://www.justice.gov.yk.ca/pdf/TPSA_summary_for_Report.pdf, and for the subcomponent would then be double counted inflating the total http://www.justice.gov.nt.ca/pdf/CommunityJustice/NWT_Policing_Rep expenditure. When it is a concern, double counting is discussed along ort_2007.pdf with the data source selection for each component. 11 Ibid. 9 This report does not include military police. 12 http://www.opp.ca/ecms/index.php?id=13 4

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

Québec municipalities subcontracting the services of (Ottawa), and the RCMP. The categories are the Sûreté du Québec (SQ) pay depending on described below and are summarized in Table 3-1 population size and other factors.13 (not exhaustive).

For those parts of Newfoundland and Labrador that 3.1.3.1 Fully Dedicated to Crime use the services of the RCMP, the province pays 70% The following activities were classified as fully of the expenditure and the federal government dedicated to crime: 30%.14 • crime prevention; 3.1.3 Policing Expenditures that are Crime- Specific • criminal investigation (including coroner and forensic services); Not all police activity is dedicated to criminal justice. Thus, not all money spent on police relates directly • drug and organized crime task forces; and to crime. In order to estimate how much of policing expenses are spent on criminal justice, PBO had to • firearms programs. estimate the amount of time police actually spend on 3.1.3.2 Partially Dedicated to Crime crime-specific activities. Partially dedicated to crime items are activities that A 2010 Department of Justice report assumed that have both a criminal and a non-criminal component. 75% of police time is spent on criminal related There were two line items that were partially activities.15 In an effort to arrive at a more empirical dedicated to crime activities: assumption, PBO analyzed expenditure line items • patrol; and and contacted police forces directly on the percentage of their activities related to criminal • emergency operations. justice. 3.1.3.3 Not Related to Crime Based on its own analysis, PBO divided police budget Examples of items that were considered not related line items into four categories: to crime were: the program activity line item “Canadian police culture and heritage” for the 1. fully dedicated to crime; 16 RCMP in federal public accounts and in Alberta 2. partially dedicated to crime; public accounts line items such as traffic sheriff operations, fish and wildlife enforcement, 3. not related to crime; and commercial vehicle enforcement and parks conservation enforcement. 4. administrative overhead. 3.1.3.4 Administrative Overhead Using these categories and the definition of a A line item is considered overhead if it supports the criminal expenditure from above, PBO analyzed activities listed in the previous three categories. police budgets for a province (OPP), a municipality Whereas the previous activities are external facing (e.g. patrol, crime investigation, emergency response 13 Full details can be found at etc.), overhead is internal facing in support of these http://www.securitepublique.gouv.qc.ca/police/police-quebec/services- activities. police/desserte-policiere/tarification-sq.html 14 http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/1997/just/0512N01.HTM 15 Zhang (2010). This assumption was based on a UK study suggesting that approximately 61% of a police officer’s time is spent on specific incidents (including traffic) and patrolling, with the remaining 39% spent on meetings, briefings, breaks etc. (Whitehead (2010)). Given that traffic offences are not criminal; actual time spent on crime should be less. 16 The RCMP Musical Ride program is under this heritage line item. 5

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

Overhead includes internal services, corporate, 3.1.3.5 Calculating Percentage of Time on Crime support, training, resourcing, and technology Before PBO could determine the percentage of the infrastructure. total expenditures for criminal justice, it was necessary to allocate expenditures proportionate to Table 3-1 Police Budget Category Line Item the activities classified as ‘partially dedicated to Descriptions crime’: police on patrol and emergency operations.

Category Item Description Police on patrol are simultaneously providing two Fully Crime Outreach programs services: looking out for criminal activities and dedicated to prevention like neighbourhood monitoring traffic infractions. For example, in the crime watch and children Ontario Police Services Act it states “Every chief of street proofing etc. police shall establish procedures and processes on Criminal Investigating crimes investigation that have been community patrol which address when and where committed/reported directed patrol is considered necessary or Drug and Specialized appropriate, based on such factors as crime, call and organized crime programs to tackle public disorder analysis, criminal intelligence and taskforces specific crime issues road safety. O. Reg. 3/99, s. 4 (3)”17. Partially Patrol Out on the beat (car, dedicated to foot, motorcycle) The proportion of time police on patrol devote to crime looking for criminal each of these activities is dependent on the or traffic infractions Emergency Tactical team, environment in which they work. operations airport police, public safety (events), In urban settings (i.e. municipal police forces) the canine unit etc. proportion dedicated to monitoring for crime is Not crime RCMP Heritage Musical Ride approximately 80% and in rural settings (i.e. related Various Alberta Fish and wildlife provincial police), it is approximately 30%.18 enforcement enforcement, activities commercial vehicle The Ottawa Police Service also has a separate line enforcement, parks item for emergency operations which includes conservation enforcement and tactical, canine, and bomb units in addition to non- traffic sheriff criminal activities such as traffic escort and public operations safety. Like patrol in the urban environment, Administrative Internal services Facilities, finance, approximately 80% of emergency operations overhead IT (also can be expenditures are crime related.19 under corporate or technology The annual report of the OPP includes a table which infrastructure) presents the number of total duty hours worked by Corporate Finance, facilities management, field personnel broken down into four categories: 20 evidence criminal, traffic, other, and patrol. This data was management etc. used to determine the percentage of time that field Support Call centre, 911, personnel spend on crime. PBO determined that 47% victim crisis etc. of OPP field personnel time is devoted to criminal Training

Resourcing Hiring, Human 17 http://www.e- Resources, labour laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_990003_e.htm relations etc. 18 From the Ottawa Police Service (series of emails January 2013) and Technology IT infrastructure OPP (telephone call December 13, 2012) infrastructure 19 From email correspondence with the Ottawa Police Service (January 2013). 20 Ontario Provincial Police (2012). 6

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

21 justice activities. This value of 47% was used to 3.1.4 Policing Expenditure Data Sources weight the budget amount assigned to Field and Traffic operations. Using this weighting, Appendix B As noted above, policing expenditures were collected shows that 61% of the OPP budget is criminal justice for the three different levels of government: federal, related. provincial and municipal. Statistics Canada’s Canadian Socio-Economic Information Management A breakdown of personnel hours was not available System (CANSIM) tables were used for municipal for the Ottawa Police Service, therefore PBO applied police expenditures and public accounts were used a weighting of 80%, consistent with the estimated for federal and provincial police expenditures. For a percentage of patrol time devoted to crime in an discussion of other possible data sources refer to urban environment. Using this value as well as the Appendix A. 80% weighting for emergency operations, it was estimated that 86% of the Ottawa Police Service 3.1.4.1 Municipal Police Expenditure Data Budget22 was criminal justice related. Detailed Statistics Canada, via the Financial Management calculations are shown in Appendix B. System (FMS), collects financial information for the three levels of government covering 1989 to 2009. Like the provincial and municipal police services, an CANSIM table 385-003 provides municipal estimate of the percentage of RCMP expenditure expenditures consolidated at the provincial and devoted to criminal justice activities was also territorial level and provides the ability to separate required.23 out the municipal policing expenditures.26 The municipal police data is obtained by an annual Previously, it was described that the RCMP pays 30% “survey, which includes municipal units in all major of the provincial police expenditure in 11 of Canada’s urban areas and a representative sample of other 14 jurisdictions as well as 30% of the expenditure for municipalities” and “is inflated to produce aggregate municipalities with less than 15,000 people. data for the municipal component of the local general government universe in each province and From a pure police operations viewpoint, this results territory.”27 in the bulk of the RCMP expenditure being similar to provincial police rather than municipal police. With One of the categories of data in the FMS is titled this in mind, the 47% calculated above for the Protection of Persons and Property and includes percentage of OPP field expenditures devoted to expenditures on national defence, courts of law, criminal justice was rounded up to 50% and used to correction and rehabilitation services, policing, scale the RCMP police operation expenditures, firefighting, regulatory measures (all noncriminal), resulting in a value of 59% of the total RCMP and other protection of persons and property (all 24 budget (including administration expenditures) noncriminal). The policing category for being allocated to criminal justice. The bump-up to municipalities, which is in CANSIM tables 385-003, 59% is a result of some RCMP budget line items that was used for this analysis. are fully dedicated to crime such as law enforcement services. This analysis is shown in Appendix B.25 The municipal policing information is only available for years 1988 through 2008. Years 2009 through 2012 were linear trend estimates using the previous

21 Details of all police budget calculations are provided in Appendix B. years. 22 See http://www.ottawapolice.ca/Libraries/Publications/2013_OPS_Draft_Bu dget_web.sflb.ashx 23 Discussions have been initiated with the RCMP to refine these 2011. Since these expenditures were not crime related, the values for estimates. these years were linear trend estimates using the other years. 24 Obtained from federal public accounts. 26 For information see http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc- 25 In estimating the RCMP police expenditures, there was a noticeable cel?catno=68F0023XWE&lang=eng#formatdisp spike in expenditures due to the Olympics and the G20 in years 2009 to 27 Ministry of Industry (2009, p. 22). 7

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

3.1.4.2 Federal and Provincial Police Expenditure Entity Expenditure Location Data items 31 Public accounts were chosen for federal and SQ municipal SQ annual reports provincial police data. Public accounts provide a level recoveries British All except Consolidated of detail, not found in the Statistics Canada data, that Columbia capital Revenue Fund allows for an analysis of which expenditures were expenditures Supplementary criminal justice related or not. Schedules in public accounts under One other consideration in collecting policing annual service plan 32 expenditure data using these two different sources is reports Capital Ministry annual the previously described possibility of double 33 counting. Specifically in the case of policing, when expenditures service plan report Alberta All Combination of line municipalities, provinces, and territories use contract item expenditures police services, it is necessary to not include these and allocated expenditures twice. Given that the municipal policing expenditures in expenditures from FMS are a single consolidated ministry annual reports34 number for each province, the recoveries that the 35 contract provider (i.e. RCMP everywhere except Municipal All police CANSIM 385-003 expenditures Ontario and Québec; OPP to Ontario municipalities; the SQ to the Québec municipalities) receives need to be subtracted from the contractor’s total 3.2 Courts expenses. As described in the introduction, expenditures for The term “public accounts” is used loosely in that the court system for the purpose of this report policing data is not always found within the formal included the court buildings, judges, prosecutors, Public Accounts. In some cases, it has been obtained legal aid, and youth justice. Youth justice was from jurisdictional ministry annual reports and the included under ‘courts’ since it spans all three parts annual reports of the police service. Table 3-2 lists of the justice system. the publicly available data that was used and its 36 location for each of the data sources organized by 3.2.1 Court Structure jurisdiction. At the federal level there are four different courts: Table 3-2 Location of Policing Data by Jurisdiction • Supreme Court of Canada; Entity Expenditure Location items • Federal Court; Federal All Federal public government accounts28 Ontario All Ontario public 31 accounts29 http://www.sq.gouv.qc.ca/mission-et- services/publications/publications-sq-police.jsp Québec All except SQ Québec public 32 30 http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/default.htm municipal accounts 33 http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/default.htm recoveries 34 Alberta was the only jurisdiction that had allocated building accommodation expenditures that had to be added to the ministry reported expenditures. See http://www.finance.alberta.ca/publications/measuring/ministry-annual- reports.html 35 28 http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/index.html http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&id=385 29 http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/paccts/2012/ 0003&tabMode=dataTable&srchLan=-1&p1=-1&p2=9 30 http://www.finances.gouv.qc.ca/en/pub.asp?enter=ok#pub 36 Military courts are not included in this study. 8

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

• Federal Court of Appeal; and Figure 3-1 Outline of Canada's Court System

• Tax Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada is Canada’s final court of appeal. The Federal Court “hears and decides legal disputes arising in the federal domain, including claims against the Government of Canada, civil suits in federally-regulated areas and challenges to the decisions of federal tribunals.”37

The Federal Court of Appeal hears appeals from the Federal Court and the Tax Court of Canada.

The Tax Court of Canada hears appeals from Source: Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association assessments under the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, “the Employment Insurance Act and the 3.2.2 Court Funding Canada Pension Plan, among others.”38 Federal level court facilities, operation, and judges Provinces and territories have “two levels of superior are paid for by the federal government. court, one to hear trials and the other to hear appeals. Superior courts handle criminal offences, For the provincial superior courts, the judges are paid divorces, civil cases involving large amounts of and appointed by the federal government while the money and Charter challenges, and review the facilities and operations are paid by the provinces decisions of administrative tribunals and some lower and territories. courts.”39 The name given to the superior court varies depending on the jurisdiction (e.g. Superior The total expenditures for the provincial and Court in Quebec and Court of Queen’s Bench in territorial courts including judges are borne by the Alberta). respective jurisdiction.

In addition to superior courts, each jurisdiction has a Prosecution services are paid by the respective provincial or territorial court. “These courts have the province. power to deal with every criminal offence except the most serious offences, such as murder and piracy, Each province has a legal aid program which pays for and conduct pre-trial hearings” “in criminal cases legal representation when the defendant cannot destined for trial in superior court.”40 They also afford representation themselves. Legal aid is funded handle cases involving provincial law. through a combination of transfers from the federal government and funding from the jurisdiction. Youth courts, small claim courts, and traffic courts are all sub-courts within the provincial and territorial Youth justice is also funded through a combination of court system. federal transfers and jurisdictional funding.

A diagram of the court structure in Canada is shown 3.2.3 Criminal Court Specific Expenditures in Figure 3-1. In the public accounts, court expenditures include 37 http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/portal/page/portal/fc_cf_en/Index both civil and criminal court activities. It was 38 http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/portal/page/portal/tcc- therefore necessary to determine a method to cci_Eng/Index 39 Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association (2006). separate out the criminal court expenditures. In 40 Ibid. 9

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada order to do this, each of the four jurisdictions, that courts for the cities of Edmonton, Calgary, Red Deer actual expenditures were collected for, were and Lethbridge for 2003 to 2012. These four cities investigated to see what data was available that constitute 90% of Alberta’s population. Additionally, could be used to separate the criminal and civil court the data also included the percentage of time which expenditures. each of these courts devote to criminal and civil matters. Using this data, it was determined that 63% 41 The Ontario court services division annual report of the court expenditures in Alberta were dedicated publishes the sitting hours of provincial and superior to criminal justice activities. The detailed calculations courts broken down by civil, criminal, family and are provided in Appendix C. Like Ontario, Alberta small claims. Traffic court and the expenditures doesn’t include traffic court expenditures in its court associated with them are the responsibility of the expenditure roll-up. municipalities. The percentage of court time devoted to criminal proceedings is 64%. See Appendix C for PBO submitted a request for the number of court the detailed calculations. Since Ontario doesn’t hours or expenditures dedicated to crime to the publish the hours’ breakdown for the Court of province of Québec, but due to the limitations of the Appeal, it was determined that using the same information the data could not be provided. Quebec proportion of criminal expenses as was used for the did send PBO information regarding the number and lower courts for the appeal court would be a type of cases its courts (civil, small claims, criminal, reasonable estimate. This determination was based and youth) receive each year (2007 to 2011). Since on a couple of factors. First, appeals make up a very traffic offences were not included as a line item, it small proportion of total court proceedings (0.35%) was assumed that like Ontario and Alberta, traffic and second, the proportion of criminal cases in the offences were not included in the provincial lower courts (56%) and the appeal court (52%) are government’s court expenditures. quite close.42 Given the almost identical percentage of crime British Columbia (BC) doesn’t publish court hours or related expenditures for Alberta and Ontario, it was expenditures for its court system broken out by type decided to use Ontario’s value of 64% as the of proceeding. A request was made for this standardized proportion for the expenditure roll-up information to the BC Ministry of Justice, which for both Alberta and Québec. This was done for provided an analysis of the court hours from 2002 consistency and to account for Ontario’s justice through 2011. Using this information, PBO budget being three times the size of Alberta’s. BC’s determined that 53% of BC’s court time is dedicated court expenditures were scaled by 53% since their to criminal justice activities. One factor contributing courts included traffic. to this lower percentage is that the provincial government in BC is responsible for traffic court, For courts at the federal level, only the Supreme unlike in Ontario where it is the municipalities’ Court of Canada hears criminal proceedings. Since responsibility. The detailed calculations are provided the federal court of appeal, the federal court, and in Appendix C. the tax court do not hear criminal proceedings, their expenditures were not included. The Supreme Court Like BC, Alberta doesn’t publish the sitting hours for doesn’t publish a breakdown of court expenditures its courts. In response to a request, the Alberta or hours by criminal and non-criminal case, so the Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General sent PBO the same 64% expenditure assignment as determined for expenditures for its Provincial and Queen’s Bench Ontario and Alberta was used. The expenditure for the Supreme Court is relatively small (less than 4% of federal criminal justice spending) and variation in the 41 assigned percentage would not have a material http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/courts_a nnual_11/Court_Services_Annual_Report_FULL_EN.pdf impact on the overall criminal justice expenditure. 42 Ibid. 10

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

The overwhelming majority of the federal for the years 2004 to 2009 and by 35% for 2010 to government’s court related expenditures occur as a 2012. Using these expenditure adjustments, the result of the government’s responsibility for the expenditure per capita prior to 2006 seemed high, remuneration of superior and appeal court judges in possibly indicating that some overhead expenditures the provinces and territories. With this in mind, the were included at this time that were subsequently assumption was made that these expenditures excluded. should be apportioned using the same ratio as was determined for Ontario and Alberta (i.e. 64%). After examining the adjusted BC expenditures and comparing the per capita values to Ontario’s, the 3.2.4 Estimating Youth Justice Expenditures years from 2006 to 2009 seemed to be the most representative because they were linearly increasing Of the four jurisdictions whose public accounts were and the per capita expenditures were similar to analysed, only Ontario presents youth justice as a Ontario’s. This three year time period was then used separate line item in its public accounts (Ministry of to linear trend estimate the full time period for BC. Children and Youth Services) that accounted for all of BC’s estimated per capita expenditures compare the expenditures. The only other jurisdiction that had favourably to Ontario’s over the duration, with BC any youth justice line items (other than federal being slightly higher at the beginning and slightly government transfers) was Alberta which listed lower at the end. The per capita estimated youth correction centre expenditures under the expenditures for the youth justice system in BC were ministry of the Solicitor General and Public Safety. then used to estimate the expenditures for both Alberta and Québec’s youth justice system. Correction centres only capture a portion of the youth justice expenditures. Items such as outreach 3.2.5 Court Expenditure Data Sources programs, youth courts, alternative measures (e.g. restorative justice), and addiction treatment centres The data sources that were used for each of the are not included in these line items and were not components that are included in the court listed anywhere else. expenditures (courts and judges, prosecutors, legal aid, and youth justice) are described in the following In 2012, on a per capita basis, Ontario spent $27 on subsections. Refer to Appendix A for a discussion of youth criminal justice while Alberta spent $8 when the alternative data sources that were considered. only counting the expenditures for the youth correction centres (therefore excluding everything 3.2.5.1 Courts and Judges Data Source but correction centres). All the youth justice data and As described in detail above, the difficulty in calculations described in this section are shown in determining the criminal expenditures for courts and Appendix D. judges is the requirement to separate this data from the total court system expenditures which include PBO wasn’t able to obtain more detailed information both civil and criminal activities. Unfortunately, no from Alberta but BC did send youth justice data sources were found that separated criminal and expenditures covering the fiscal years 2004 to 2012. civil court and judges’ expenditures. Therefore, these These BC values didn’t include overhead expenses expenditures were obtained using the full court 43 which are estimated at approximately 30%. It was expenditures from public accounts combined with an also learned that, after 2009, reported expenditures estimate of the criminal portion based on the were even lower due to additional overhead items number of court sitting hours devoted to criminal not being included. To account for these varying law administration. percentages of excluded overhead expenditures, the BC youth justice expenditures were inflated by 30% These court sitting hours were obtained from annual reports (Ontario), if available, or from private

43 Confirmed by BC’s Ministry of Children and Family Development. correspondence with the respective jurisdictions (BC 11

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada and Alberta). As mentioned above, due to addition, the federal government provides transfer information limitations, Québec was unable to payments to the provinces and territories which provide any data. were obtained from section six of the federal public accounts. Like legal aid transfer payments, these 3.2.5.2 Prosecution Services Data Sources & youth justice transfer payments had to be subtracted Selection when performing the rollup of the total expenditures Prosecution expenditures were obtained from public for the federal government and the jurisdictions. accounts for both the federal government and provinces since they are a separate line item. At the 3.2.5.5 Data Source Selection Summary federal level, prosecution expenditures only became Table 3-3 presents a summary of the sources of data a separate line item in 2006. The missing years for all the expenditures that were included within (2002-2005) were linear trend estimated using the courts. available years (2006-2012). Table 3-3 Location of Court Expenditure Data 3.2.5.3 Legal Aid Data Sources & Selection Statistic Canada’s Legal Aid Survey (LAS) was used to Entity Expenditure Location obtain criminal legal aid expenditures.44 LAS is items performed annually covering all jurisdictions and it Federal All (policies, Federal public 46 has separate line items for criminal, civil, government laws, courts, accounts administrative and other expenditures. The LAS data judges, 45 prosecution, is found in CANSIM table 258-0002. legal aid and youth justice LAS data is only available up to 2010; therefore, the transfers) values for 2011 and 2012 had to be linear trend Ontario All except legal Ontario public estimated. Also, in order to avoid double counting, it aid accounts47 48 was necessary to subtract federal government legal Legal aid CANSIM 258-0002 Québec All except legal Québec public aid transfer payments to the provinces and 49 territories. The legal aid transfer payments were aid and youth accounts justice determined by adding the payments listed in section Youth justice Estimation based on six of the federal public accounts. When performing BC’s expenditures the rollup of the federal government and Legal aid CANSIM 258-0002 jurisdictions, these transfer payments were then British All except legal Consolidated subtracted so that they wouldn’t be double counted Columbia aid and youth Revenue Fund as they are already included in the jurisdictional justice Supplementary totals. Schedules in public accounts under annual service plan 3.2.5.4 Youth Justice Data Sources & Selection reports. Capital Summarizing from the previous discussion, the youth expenditures justice data for the jurisdictions came from a in ministry annual combination of public accounts (Ontario), data that service plan reports50 was shared with PBO (BC) and estimates based on this shared data (BC, Alberta, and Québec). In

46 http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/index.html 44 47 http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/paccts/2012/ http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=3 48 http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/pick- 308&lang=en&db=imdb&adm=8&dis=2 choisir?lang=eng&id=2580002&pattern=2580002&searchTypeByValue=1 45 http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/pick- &p2=42 choisir?lang=eng&id=2580002&pattern=2580002&searchTypeByValue=1 49 http://www.finances.gouv.qc.ca/en/pub.asp?enter=ok#pub &p2=42 50 http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/default.htm 12

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

Entity Expenditure Location 3.3.2 Corrections and Parole Funding items Youth justice Internal BC data that Federal correctional facilities are funded by the was then used to federal government while the provinces and create an estimate territories fund their own correctional facilities. Legal aid CANSIM 258-0002 Alberta All except legal Combination of line The PBC is funded by the federal government while aid and youth item expenditures justice and allocated Québec and Ontario fund their respective parole expenditures in boards. ministry annual 51 reports 3.3.3 Corrections and Parole Specific Youth justice Estimation based on Expenditures BC’s expenditures Legal aid CANSIM 258-0002 Since corrections and parole deal only with those

that have committed a criminal offence, all expenditures are included. At the federal level, in 3.3 Corrections and Parole addition to all expenditures for the Correctional Of the three components of criminal justice delivery, Service of Canada and the PBC, the expenditures for corrections and parole expenditures were the least the Office of the Correctional Investigator are complicated to determine because each is treated as included as well since they are a result of the a separate program within the public accounts and, correctional system. Similarly, at the jurisdictional in almost all jurisdictions, parole is the responsibility level, the total expenditure for the correctional of the federal government. The information available system from the public accounts was included. in public accounts meant no estimations were Besides the expenditure for operating and building necessary. Note that corrections and parole only deal prisons, these expenditures also include transfer with adult (18 years or older) offenders. Minors are payments to support outside rehabilitation programs handled by the youth justice system (above). and community work. All expenditures are net of recoveries such as profits made from selling goods 3.3.1 Corrections and Parole Structure which inmates have made.

The federal government incarcerates adult inmates For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that sentenced to imprisonment of two years or more. there are some offences that result in incarceration The provinces and territories incarcerate adult that are not due to violation of criminal law as 52 inmates sentenced to imprisonment of less than two described above. It is assumed that these detainees years and those on remand. make up a materially insignificant portion of the prison population and no attempt has been made to Parole is operated by the federal government’s separate out the associated expenditures. Parole Board of Canada (PBC) in all jurisdictions except for Ontario and Québec, which operate their 3.3.4 Corrections and Parole Data Sources own parole boards. Up until April 1, 2007, BC operated its own parole board after which the PBC As mentioned above, collection of correction and assumed responsibility. parole expenditures was straight forward since the data was readily available in public accounts. Table 3-4 presents the sources for the data.

51 Alberta was the only jurisdiction that had allocated building accommodation expenditures that had to be added to the ministry reported expenditures. See http://www.finance.alberta.ca/publications/measuring/ministry-annual- reports.html 52 See supra note 6. 13

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

Table 3-4 Location of Correction and Parole Data Time considerations limited the expenditure collection to the four jurisdictions, which Entity Expenditure Location proportionally represent 86% of the population. The items total provincial and territorial expenditures were Federal All (corrections Federal public estimated by the average per capita expenditures for 53 government and parole) accounts the four provinces. Ontario All (corrections Ontario public 54 and parole) accounts The total expenditure for the Canadian criminal Québec All (corrections Québec public 55 justice system unadjusted for inflation is shown in and parole) accounts British Corrections Consolidated Figure 4-1. The same data but adjusted for inflation 59 Columbia (Parole included Revenue Fund (2002 dollars) is shown in Figure 4-2. As can be in corrections Supplementary seen from the two figures, the expenditure for the until 2007. After Schedules in public Canadian criminal justice has been increasing both in 2007, PBC accounts under nominal and real terms over the past 10 years. In assumed annual service plan nominal terms, total expenditure has increased 66% responsibility) reports. Capital 60 expenditures reaching $20.3 billion in 2012. Of this amount, $5.5 in ministry annual billion (27%) is federal spending and $14.8 billion service plan reports56 (73%) is spent by the provinces and territories. In real Alberta Corrections Combination of line terms (2002 dollars), the increase has been 37%, excluding youth item expenditures starting at $12.2 billion in 2002 and reaching $16.7 (Federal and allocated billion in 2012. government is expenditures responsible for (schedule 7) in parole) ministry annual Figure 4-1 Nominal Expenditure for the Canadian reports57 Criminal Justice System

4 Criminal Justice Expenditure Estimate 2002-2012

Using the methodology that was presented in the previous section, criminal justice expenditures were collected for fiscal years 2001-2002 through 2011- 2012 for the federal government as well as Ontario, Québec, BC and Alberta.58 The time span for the collected data was dictated by the availability of online public accounts for all entities.

Source: PBO 53 http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/index.html 54 http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/paccts/2012/ 55 http://www.finances.gouv.qc.ca/en/pub.asp?enter=ok#pub 56 http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/default.htm 57 Alberta was the only jurisdiction that had allocated building 59 Inflation adjustment was performed using the consumer price index accommodation expenditures that had to be added to the ministry (CPI). reported expenditures. See 60 As a comparative, PBO’s criminal justice expenditure estimate for 2008 http://www.finance.alberta.ca/publications/measuring/ministry-annual- is $16.7 B while the Department of Justice`s was $15.0 B (Zhang (2010)). reports.html Given that PBO’s included police capital expenditures, a higher 58 For convenience, a specific fiscal year is referenced using the year it proportion of operational police spending and more youth justice ends in (e.g. 2002 represents fiscal year 2001-2002). expenditures, the numbers are quite close. 14

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

Figure 4-2 Expenditure for the Canadian Criminal Figure 4-3 Real Per Capita Expenditure for the Justice System Adjusted to 2002 Dollars Canadian Criminal Justice System in 2002 Dollars

Sources: Statistics Canada, PBO Source: PBO In addition to a per capita expenditure view of the The previous two expenditure figures presented the criminal justice system, Figure 4-3 shows the nominal and real expenditures for the criminal justice Canadian crime rate which provides a backdrop to system. But given that the Canada’s population is these expenditure figures. increasing throughout this period, using a per capita presentation of the real expenditure abstracts out From 2002 to 2011, the crime rate has decreased both inflation and population growth. Figure 4-3 from 7,516 incidents per 100,000 people to 5,757 presents the per capita expenditures for Canada’s (30.6% drop). Figure 4-4 presents a longer term criminal justice system in 2002 dollars. From 2002 to perspective of Canada’s crime rate using Statistics 2012, it has increased from $389 to $478—a 23% Canada data which start in 1962. increase. As can be seen from the figure, the crime rate peaked in 1991 at just over 10,000 incidents per 100,000 and has been declining steadily ever since (except for a one-time slight increase in 2003), reaching a value of 5,757 incidents per 100,000 in 2011.

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

Figure 4-4 Police-reported Canadian Crime Rate In considering the expenditure for the criminal (1962-2011) justice system as a percentage of GDP in Figure 4-5, there was a steady decline from 2003 (1.044%) to 2006 (0.968%), following which it increased to 1.115% by 2012. From 2006 to 2012, the criminal justice system has increased its percentage of GDP by 0.147 percentage points. At the same time, throughout this period (2006-2011), crime has decreased by 20.5%.

We can better understand the cost drivers of the criminal justice system by separating total expenditure into its three primary components: security, courts, and corrections. Each of these is shown in Figure 4-6, Figure 4-7, and Figure 4-8 respectively.

Source: Statistics Canada As can be seen from these charts, the drivers of the increase to the percentage of GDP have been Yet another way to look at the expenditure for the security and corrections. Security expenditures were criminal justice system is to divide the nominal relatively flat in the beginning of the period and have expenditure by the nominal gross domestic product been increasing steadily starting in 2007. On the (GDP). This provides the percentage of the Canadian other hand, correction expenditures were decreasing economic output that is spent on criminal justice, until 2007 when they started their increase. Court showing whether it has been increasing, decreasing expenditures, after initially decreasing, have been or staying constant. increasing since 2006 but have not reached the same levels as 2002. The one consideration when dividing the criminal justice expenditure by nominal GDP is that significant Figure 4-5 Criminal Justice Expenditure as a changes to GDP affect its value. As a result of the Percentage of GDP 2009 recession, there was a 4.9% drop in nominal GDP between 2008 and 2009. This GDP decrease caused the criminal justice expenditure as a percentage of GDP to spike upwards in 2009 and subsequently drop lower in the following two years as the economy recovered and GDP increased.

Figure 4-5 presents the criminal justice expenditures as a percentage of GDP. Notice the spike in 2009 due to the recession. Also notice that by 2011 and 2012, the slope of the line was back in line at a higher level with the slope between 2006 and 2008. Given that all the charts in this report that express expenditure as a percentage of GDP have this 2009 spike, it will not be discussed again. Furthermore, descriptive analysis of the results in this report ignores these effects, Sources: Statistics Canada, PBO concentrating on the time period before and after the recession. 16

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

Figure 4-6 Security Expenditures as a Percentage of Figure 4-7 Court Expenditures as a Percentage of GDP GDP

Sources: Statistics Canada, PBO Sources: Statistics Canada, PBO

Another way to consider the changes in expenditures for the criminal justice system is by the proportion of Figure 4-8 Corrections Expenditures as a Percentage the total expenditures each subcomponent has of GDP consumed over time. Pie charts with the expenditure proportions of the subcomponents in 2002 and 2012 are shown in Figure 4-9 and Figure 4-10. In 2002, security was 54% of the total expenditure with courts at 22% and corrections at 24%. By 2012, security represents 57% of the total expenditures, while courts have decreased to 20% and corrections decreased slightly to 23%. Though both the expenditure for security and corrections are increasing with regards to their share of GDP, it is security that is increasing at a faster rate.

Sources: Statistics Canada, PBO

Further analysis and a discussion of each of these three components are presented in the following three subsections. Each subsection includes an analysis of the combined spending as well as the differences between the federal and jurisdiction spending.

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

Figure 4-9 Criminal Justice Expenditure Proportion 0.563% of GDP in 2006 and rising to 0.635% in 2012. 2002 This is an increase of 0.072 percentage points in 6 years. This increase in the expenditure for security’s proportion of GDP translates into an additional $1.3 billion (2012 dollars) spent in 2012 than would have been spent if the expenditure for security remained at its 2006 value of 0.563% of GDP. During this time period, the crime rate decreased by 20.5%.

Drilling down further into the expenditures for security, Figure 4-11 and Figure 4-12 present the security expenditures for the federal government and the provinces and territories respectively. As can be seen from the graphs, the federal government was responsible for the increase until 2005, and the provinces and territories drove the expenditure increase until 2011 when both the federal government and the jurisdictions shared responsibility for the increase in 2012. The Source: PBO anomalous spike in security expenditures in 2003 (ignoring the previously described recession spike of 2009) for the provinces and territories is due to a one-time increase followed by a decrease in 2004 for Figure 4-10 Criminal Justice Expenditure Proportion Québec municipal police expenditures. Since these 2012 values came from Statistics Canada’s CANSIM tables, it is not possible to determine what caused this anomaly.

From a proportion of expenditure perspective, in 2002, the federal government had 16% of the security expenditures while the provinces and territories had 84%. By 2012, the proportions had changed marginally with the federal government responsible for 17% and the provinces and territories 83%.

From 2002 to 2012, the federal government’s security expenditure percentage share of GDP increased from 0.088% to 0.106%, which is a 0.018 percentage point increase. The provinces and territories increased from 0.475% to 0.529% which is

Source: PBO an 0.054 percentage point increase. In 2012 dollars, this is an additional expenditure of $327 million for the federal government and $982 million for the 4.1 Analysis of Security Expenditures provinces and territories above what would have Figure 4-6 shows that the expenditure for security been spent if the expenditure for security remained has steadily increased since 2006, starting out at at its 2002 percentage of GDP values.

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

Figure 4-11 Federal Security Expenditures as a risen to 0.221%, a difference of $418 million (2012 Percentage of GDP dollars). Figure 4-13 and Figure 4-14 separate out the court expenditures for the federal government and the provinces and territories.

The share of court expenditures between the two levels of government has shifted over the 10 years with the federal government’s share declining and the provinces and territories increasing.

In 2002, the federal government had 32% of the expenditures and the provinces and territories had 68%. By 2012, the federal government had 22% of the expenditures and the provinces and territories had 78%. The federal court expenditures are Sources: Statistics Canada, PBO discussed next followed by the provinces’ and territories’ court expenditures.

Figure 4-13 Federal Court Expenditures as a Figure 4-12 Provincial Security Expenditures as a Percentage of GDP Percentage of GDP

Sources: Statistics Canada, PBO Sources: Statistics Canada, PBO

4.2 Analysis of Court Expenditures The federal government’s percentage of GDP spending on courts has declined throughout the past Figure 4-7 shows that though the expenditure for the 10 years with its biggest decline during the first three court system has varied over the 10 years, the years. starting and ending value, as a percentage of GDP, Upon closer examination of the data, this are more or less the same. Nevertheless, the court expenditure decrease was due to a shift of spending expenditure is above its 2006 low. In 2006, courts from the Department of Justice’s “Policies, Laws and expenditure was 0.198% of GDP and in 2012 this had Programs” line item to other non-criminal programs within the department. The majority of this decline 19

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

was due to the responsibility for the firearm registry • a reduction of court and corporate services being moved away from the department.61 It was expenditures in BC (a decrease of $23M in assumed that “Policies, Laws and Programs” was 2010 and a further decrease of $71M in 100% dedicated to crime such that this shift (nominal 2011); and $140 million decrease between 2002 and 2005) had the observed effect on the slope of the line. Overall, • relatively flat spending in 2010 and 2011 in the federal government’s spending on courts Québec and Alberta. decreased from 0.071% to 0.048% of GDP over the 10 years. This decrease has resulted in savings of With the assumption that Ontario’s capital spending $418 million at the federal level in 2012 compared to will slow down in the near future, it is expected that if the percentage of GDP devoted to crime had the overall provincial court expenditure will remained at its 2002 level of 0.071%. decrease. Nevertheless, as it currently stands, provincial spending has increased from 0.152% to Figure 4-14 Provincial Court Expenditures as a 0.173% of GDP over the past 10 years. Percentage of GDP 4.3 Analysis of Correction Expenditures

Figure 4-8, presents the graph of the combined federal and provincial and territorial spending on corrections over the past 10 years as a percentage of GDP. The expenditure for corrections decreased from 2002 until 2006 and then increased until 2012 (once again ignoring the 2009 recession spike). Spending was 0.247% of GDP in 2002 falling to 0.208% in 2006 then rising to 0.259% in 2012. From 2002 to 2012 the percentage point increase was 0.012 or $218 million in 2012 dollars (or 4.86% increase). The difference between the low in 2006 of 0.208% and the high of 0.259% in 2012 is 0.051 percentage points or represents an increase of $928 million in 2012

Sources: Statistics Canada, PBO dollars.

In considering the provincial spending on courts Once again, separating the federal spending from the (Figure 4-14), it is apparent that the recent increase provincial spending provides a clearer picture of the in combined (federal and provincial) court corrections expenditure. expenditures (Figure 4-7) is due to provincial Federal spending is shown in Figure 4-15 while the spending over the past five years. A close spending for the provinces and territories is shown in examination of the data revealed that the provincial Figure 4-16. expenditure increases as well as fluctuations is due to several factors: From a proportion of expenditures perspective, in 2002, the federal government had 53% of the • fluctuating capital spending in Ontario expenditures for corrections compared to the ($208M in 2009, $108M in 2010, $185M in provinces and territories 47% share. By 2012, the 2011, and $323M in 2012); federal government’s share had increased to 58% with a commensurate drop to 42% for the provinces and territories. 61 http://www.oag- bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200605_04_e_14961.html 20

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

Comparing the correction expenditures for the Figure 4-16 Provincial Correction Expenditures as a federal government and the provinces and Percentage of GDP territories, both reduced the percentage of GDP spent on corrections between 2002 and 2006.62 In 2007, the federal government started increasing the percentage of GDP dedicated to corrections while the provinces and territories waited until 2008.

Figure 4-15 Federal Correction Expenditures as a Percentage of GDP

Sources: Statistics Canada, PBO

From 2002 until 2006, the federal government reduced the percentage of GDP spent on corrections from 0.131% to 0.114% which then increased to 0.150% by 2012. The percentage point difference between 2002 and 2012 was 0.019 ($346 million in 2012 dollars) and from the low of 2006 to 2012, it

Sources: Statistics Canada, PBO was a 0.036 percentage point difference ($655 million in 2012 dollars).

For the provinces and territories, the percentage of GDP spent on corrections has decreased between 2002 and 2012 (0.116% versus 0.109%), though the percentage for 2012 is above the low of 2007 (0.093%). In terms of 2012 dollars, the reduction in spending between 2002 and 2012 is $127 million and the increase between 2007 and 2012 is $291 million.

In considering the federal and provincial and territorial spending patterns, a brief investigation was performed to determine whether it was operational or capital expenditures that were driving the changes.

As shown in Table 4-1, the federal government’s annual average spending on capital between 2002 and 2006 was $120 million per year and its annual average increase to operational spending was 2.72%.

62 The provinces and territories have a slight increase in 2003 due to a Over this time period, there were small decreases in one-time jump in Institutional Services spending in Ontario that was capital spending and small increases in operational subsequently reduced in 2004. 21

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada spending. When these values were divided by GDP, it the crime rates and another is to compare per capita resulted in correction expenditures as a proportion expenditure. of GDP decreasing. From 2007 to 2012, annual average capital expenditures increased to $206 Starting with incarceration and crime rates, Figure million and annual average operational increases 4-17 shows the federal, provincial and total yearly were 7.25%. So both increases in capital spending incarceration rates (2002-2010) in addition to the and operations contributed to the increase in federal Canadian crime rates (2002-2011). spending on corrections. As can be seen from the graph, as the crime rate has dropped by 18.3% (7516 to 6139 per 100,000) Table 4-1 Average Federal Capital Spending and between 2002 and 2010, the total incarceration rate Average Increase in Annual Operational Spending has increased by 5.8% (133 to 141 per 100,000). This 2002 to 2006 2007 to 2012 increase has been due to increasing provincial Average annual 2.72% 7.25% incarceration rates rather than federal. From 2002 to operational %Δ 2010, provincial incarceration rates increased from Average capital $120 million $206 million 132.79/100,000 to 140.53/100,000 while the federal expenditure rate has declined from 51.95/100,000 to Source: PBO 50.59/100,000.63

Turning to provincial correctional spending, the Figure 4-18 presents a per capita view of corrections decline of its proportion of GDP from 2002 and 2007 spending. In this figure, the correction expenditures was driven by capital expenditure reductions in for each year have been deflated to 2002 dollars and Ontario and operational spending reductions in BC then divided by Canada’s population for each year. (yearly average -3.4%). For the increases from 2008 to 2012, it was a combination of:

• BC increasing operational expenditures rather than decreasing (yearly average increase 2.0%);

• Québec increasing its operational expenditures (yearly average increases changing from 3.5% to 5.9%);

• Ontario increasing its average annual capital expenditures from $44 million to $113 million; and

• Alberta increasing its average operational spending from 5.14% to 6.36%.

The drop in provincial corrections spending in 2012 from 2011 was due to a reduction in Ontario capital expenditure from $256 million to $204 million.

There are several other ways in which to view the increase in correctional spending over the past six years. One is to compare the incarceration rates and 63 Statistics Canada CANSIM tables 251-0005 and 251-0006. 22

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

Figure 4-17 Canadian Incarceration and Crime Rates commensurate with the drop in crime rate, the per capita correction expenditure in 2002 dollars dropped from $93 to $87 by 2006 after which it rose to $111 by 2012.

5 Conclusions

This paper provides the first longitudinal estimation of the expenditure for the criminal justice system in Canada.64 It includes policing, courts (judges, prosecutors, legal aid, and youth justice) and corrections (including parole) expenditures.

Expenditure information was collected from the public accounts for the federal government and for the four largest provinces representing 86% of the population and was used to estimate the total expenditures for all the provinces and territories. Expenditures were collected for fiscal years 2001- 2002 through 2011-2012.

The expenditures provided here serve as a starting point to support an understanding of the Source: Statistics Canada expenditure for Canada’s criminal justice system and its components as well as to enable parliamentarians to better scrutinize planned expenses. The key findings are: Figure 4-18 Per Capita Correction Expenditures (2002 dollars) • The expenditure for the criminal justice system in 2011-2012 was $20.3 billion, which is 1.115% of GDP (2012 dollars).

• Criminal justice expenditures are split between the federal government and the provinces and territories 27% and 73% respectively ($5.5 billion and $14.8 billion in 2012).

• As a percentage of GDP, total criminal justice system expenditures trended downwards from 2002 to 2006 (1.032% to 0.968%) and since 2006 they have steadily increased to 1.115% in 2012. Sources: Statistics Canada and PBO

64 Using per capita expenditures in constant dollars Previous studies by the Department of Justice (Zhang (2010)) and Statistics Canada (Taylor-Butts (2002)) only provided expenditures for a removes expenditure increases due to inflation and single year and were missing expenditures (e.g. the capital expenditures population growth. The graph shows that for police as well as youth justice system expenditures other than corrections). 23

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

• As a percentage of GDP, security expenditures at the federal level have steadily increased over the 10 years and at the provincial level from 2007 onwards. Federal security expenditures have increased from 0.088% to 0.106% of GDP. Provincial and territorial security expenditures have increased from 0.475% to 0.529% of GDP.

• Court expenditures at the federal level have decreased as a percentage of GDP from 0.071% to 0.048%. In contrast, provincial and territorial court expenditures have increased from 0.152% to 0.173% of GDP.

• Correction expenditures as a percentage of GDP declined for the federal government from 2001-2002 through 2005-2006 (0.131% to 0.114%) and increased through 2011-2012 (0.150%). For the provinces’ and territories’ correction expenditures as a percentage of GDP declined through 2006-2007 (0.116% to 0.093%) and have increased to 2011-2012 (0.109%).

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

References

Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association. (2006). Structure of the Courts Retrieved January 29, 2013, from http://www.cscja-acjcs.ca/structure_of_courts- en.asp?l=4

Ministry of Industry. (2009). Financial Management System (FMS). Ottawa: Ministry of Industry Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/68f0023x/68f0023x20 06001-eng.pdf.

Ontario Provincial Police. (2012). OPP 2011 Annual Report. Retrieved from http://www.opp.ca/ecms/files/250258838.6.pdf.

Parliament of Canada Act, 79.1 C.F.R. (2007).

Taylor-Butts, T. (2002). Justice Spending in Canada, 2000/01. Ottawa: Industry Canada.

Whitehead, T. (2010). Police spend almost half of time not tackling crime. The Telegraph Retrieved January 22, 2013, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and- order/7639046/Police-spend-almost-half-of-time- not-tackling-crime.html

Zhang, T. (2010). Cost of Crime in Canada, 2008. Ottawa: Government of Canada.

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

Appendix A — Other Considered Data is unlikely that all do. Furthermore, the effort to Sources collect this data for all the municipalities across Canada would have taken too much time. A.1 Police Data Sources A.2 Court Data Sources There were only two readily available sources of Similar to policing expenditures, there were two police expenditure data: Statistics Canada’s CANSIM readily available sources of data for the expenditures tables and public accounts. for the court system. One was public accounts and As described in the main body of the report, the the other was Statistics Canada through their surveys Financial Management System (FMS) system was and CANSIM tables. The alternative data sources for used for municipal police expenditures. each of the components that are included in the Unfortunately it was not a viable option for the court expenditures (courts and judges, prosecutors, federal and provincial police expenditures. FMS legal aid, and youth justice) are described in the collects financial information for the three levels of following subsections. government (federal, provincial/territorial, A.2.1 Courts and Judges Data Sources municipal) covering years 1989 to 2009. The data for the federal and provincial expenditures in FMS come As described in the report, the data source that was from public accounts. There is a category of data in used was full court expenditures from public the FMS titled Protection of Persons and Property accounts and using court hours to apportion out and it includes expenditures on national defence, criminal court expenditures. The other available courts of law, correction and rehabilitation services, options were using Statistics Canada data such as policing, firefighting, regulatory measures (all FMS data or surveys such as the Courts Resources, noncriminal), and other protection of persons and Expenditures and Personnel Survey66 and various property (all noncriminal). The policing category Criminal Court Surveys.67 Unfortunately, these could be used for the federal and provincial Statistic Canada data sources do not have separate expenditures but unfortunately, the CANSIM tables data on criminal court expenditures nor distinguish that provide this information (table 385-001 and 385- between the hours spent on criminal and civil 002) are aggregated at Protection of Persons and activity. Property such that policing is not visible. A.2.2 Prosecution Services Data Sources Another option for police expenditures would be Statistics Canada’s Police Administration Survey Statistics Canada did have a survey of prosecution (PAS) (CANSIM tables 254-0001 through 254-0003). services in Canada until 2003 titled Prosecutorial PAS is an annual pencil-and-paper survey of all police Services in Canada.68 Given that the data was easily services across Canada. Among other things, it obtained from public accounts and that no collects total operating expenses but not capital estimation was required to fill in the data for missing 65 expenses. Since capital expenses are an integral years, public accounts data were used instead. expenditure of the justice system, using the PAS data was not a viable option.

Public accounts were used as the source for federal 66 and provincial police expenditures but were not a http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=3 viable option for municipalities. Even though some 310&lang=en&db=imdb&adm=8&dis=2 municipalities publish their police budgets on line, it 67 http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11293- eng.htm 68 65 See http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb- http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=3 bmdi/instrument/3301_Q1_V13-eng.htm 322&lang=en&db=imdb&adm=8&dis=2 26

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

A.2.3 Legal Aid Data Sources

The alternative to using Statistics Canada Legal Aid Survey was retrieving the legal expenditures from public accounts. Unfortunately, public accounts do not separate out criminal and civil legal aid. Given that LAS had separate line items for criminal and civil, which removed the need to perform estimations, it was selected as the data source.

A.2.4 Youth Justice Data Sources

No alternative data sources for youth justice expenditures were found.

A.3 Corrections and Parole Data Sources

Given the ease of obtaining corrections and parole expenditure data from public accounts and its perceived accuracy, no alternative data sources were sought out.

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

Appendix B — Proportion of Police Budgets Devoted to Crime 1. Ottawa Police Service Percentage of Budget Devoted to Crime Calculation

2010 Ottawa Police Service Budget (in 1,000s) Overhead Police Services 680 Executive Services 8,159 Corporate Support 34,934 Resourcing & Development 10,490 Support Services 26,279 District Directorate 33,378 Corporate Accounts 18,472 Financial Accounts 9,970 Total overhead 142,362

100% Dedicated to Crime Criminal Investigative 33,902

Partially Dedicated to Crime Emergency Operations Directorate (EOD) 20,092 Patrol 54,339

Total crime related budget 108,333

80% =Percentage of EOD on crime 80% =Percentage of municipal Patrol on crime

Proportion of Police Budget Devoted to Crime = 86% (Dedicated to crime + EOD*%EOD on crime + Patrol*%Patrol on crime)/total crime related budget

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

2. OPP Percentage of Budget Devoted to Crime Calculation

Percentage of provincial patrol on crime = 30% Field Personnel Hours worked Year 2009 2010 2011 Criminal 1,314,781 1,337,857 1,324,445 Traffic 896,774 908,595 848,104 Other 1,656,571 1,864,959 1,766,766 Patrol 1,701,324 1,802,883 1,865,314 Total hours 5,569,450 5,914,294 5,804,629

Portion assigned to criminal = 47% 46% 47% (criminal + Patrol*%Provincial Patrol on Crime)/total hours Three year average % field time spent on crime = 47%

OPP 2012 Budget in 1,000s Corporate 144,496 overhead Fleet management 60,754 overhead Total overhead 205,250

Firearms 6,288 crime Organized crime 101,920 crime Field and Traffic 303,000 partial Total crime related 411,208

Percent of total budget on crime = 61% (firearms + organized crime + field & traffic*%field on crime)/total crime related

3. RCMP Percentage of Budget Devoted to Crime

RCMP 2012 Budget in 1,000,000s police operations 1,667 partial internal services 855 overhead law enforce services 256 crime stat payments 61 crime international ops 61 crime heritage 12 not crime total not overhead 2,057

Percent total budget on crime= 59% (law enforce + stat payments + international ops + police ops*%on crime)/total not overhead

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

Appendix C — Criminal Proportion of Court Expenditure Calculation

Ontario Court Hours 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Civil 71,299 65,652 65,446 60,957 65,711 62,643 85,416 132,047 56,459 58,869 55,821 53,486 50,764 Ontario Court Criminal 222,004 237,824 246,424 257,559 260,694 271,245 277,619 277,711 284,080 288,386 292,398 288,173 281,362 Superior Court Criminal 49,811 48,335 45,750 46,574 48,433 49,706 51,955 53,496 49,930 53,678 53,565 52,501 52,572 Family - Superior Court and Ontario Court 66,244 75,099 77,893 74,782 75,515 80,902 86,866 86,702 85,815 90,007 93,268 94,719 96,526 Small Claims 27,876 26,672 27,566 28,773 28,461 30,336 32,540 31,937 29,635 32,846 33,101 34,855 36,660 Total Hours 437,234 453,582 463,079 468,645 478,814 494,832 534,396 581,893 505,919 523,786 528,153 523,734 517,884 Percentage of Hours on Criminal 62% 63% 63% 65% 65% 65% 62% 57% 66% 65% 66% 65% 64% Average Criminal Hours 2000-2012 64%

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

British Columbia Court Hours 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Provincial Adult 69,022 69,696 67,928 67,512 70,271 66,761 68,653 70,434 69,975 68,189 Provincial Traffic 11,316 10,799 8,045 7,648 8,632 7,803 4,459 6,866 7,193 8,093 Provincial Youth 7,657 7,220 6,844 6,532 6,067 5,729 5,814 5,581 5,242 4,393 Provincial Small Claims 15,355 13,697 12,683 11,352 11,797 12,519 12,779 13,875 13,341 13,605 Provincial Family 19,028 19,388 19,443 18,693 19,711 18,919 18,267 18,558 18,572 20,124 Supreme Civil 38,409 41,282 40,274 39,867 39,584 39,163 41,061 43,427 42,224 38,794 Supreme Criminal 18,639 18,045 18,459 13,416 15,944 15,416 14,536 13,849 12,954 14,675 Appeal Hours 2,462 2,074 1,809 1,570 1,724 1,649 1,603 1,675 2,173 2,414 Total Hours 181,889 182,202 175,485 166,591 173,729 167,959 167,174 174,266 171,673 170,287 (Appeals are ignored since they can’t be apportioned) Proportion criminal 53% 53% 54% 53% 54% 53% 54% 52% 52% 52% BC Average criminal over 53% the time period

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

Alberta average % Hours Criminal in Provincial Court 76.6% Alberta average % Hours Criminal in Queen's Bench 32.2% Alberta Court Expenditures (1,000s) Provincial Court 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Calgary 13,547 14,970 17,313 18,799 20,193 20,834 21,747 22,913 26,024 23,837 Edmonton 13,024 13,669 15,953 16,570 17,934 18,270 18,409 19,020 21,763 20,901 Lethbridge 2,404 2,819 3,131 2,942 3,118 2,954 3,396 3,485 3,695 3,182 Red Deer 2,086 2,316 2,363 2,535 2,766 2,452 2,761 3,109 3,614 3,544 Total 31,061 33,774 38,760 40,846 44,011 44,510 46,313 48,527 55,096 51,464 Queen's Bench Calgary 6,453 6,772 7,287 7,597 7,896 8,955 9,653 10,028 10,623 10,835 Edmonton 6,766 7,260 8,089 8,586 8,696 9,152 9,944 9,013 9,591 9,992 Lethbridge 496 539 597 700 716 855 927 950 1,027 1,051 Red Deer 752 754 777 787 958 1,110 1,208 1,195 1,213 1,308 Total 14,467 15,325 16,750 17,670 18,266 20,072 21,732 21,186 22,454 23,186 (Appeals are ignored since they can’t be apportioned) Proportion criminal 62% 63% 63% 63% 64% 63% 62% 63% 64% 63% Alberta average criminal over 63% the time period

Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada

Appendix D — Estimation of Youth Justice Expenditures BC Youth justice expenditures from their accounting system. It’s missing virtually all overhead for all years plus building occupancy expenditures after 2010. Expenditures in $1,000 and per capita are actual $ BC youth justice 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 expenditures raw values 75,492 69,327 67,816 73,283 75,525 76,946 75,240 74,207 68,849 add 30% for overhead & 35% 98,139 90,125 88,161 95,268 98,183 100,030 97,812 100,179 92,946 after 2010 per capita 24 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 20

Ontario youth 203,591 217,728 234,898 245,038 273,253 295,905 308,093 323,159 349,267 362,305 369,940 justice expenditures per capita 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 27

BC estimates using 74,223 78,076 81,928 85,780 88,161 95,268 98,183 100,030 105,041 108,893 112,745 2006-2009 per capita 18 19 20 20 21 22 22 22 23 24 24

% per capita -7% -6% -4% -4% 4% 5% 6% 10% 14% 14% 12% difference BC estimate to ON

Alberta youth 20,396 22,441 22,239 23,162 22,914 28,128 32,335 34,731 33,353 32,010 31,909 correction facilities per capita 7 7 7 7 7 8 9 9 9 8 8